masterofmagicfandomcom-20200216-history
User talk:Spearman D92-R
Edits These are pages where I have submitted major blocs of content. They are good candidates for revision to increase consistency. Additional research is needed in some topics. are ranked in order of prominence/exposure. But for now, there is plenty of content to add to the existing pages. * Beastmen * Dwarves * Experience Level * Farmer * Food * Halflings * High Elves * High Men * Klackons * Nomads * Trolls * Ariel * Freya * Horus * Jafar * Kali * Lo Pan * Merlin * Oberic * Raven * Rjak * Sharee * Sss'ra * Tauron * Tlaloc Spearman D92-R (talk) 16:17, May 21, 2013 (UTC) Welcome Hi, welcome to ! Thanks for your edit to the Engineers page. Please note that at the moment we are asking all our new editors to avoid creating any new pages. Any newly-created page will be rewritten, so it would be a wasted effort. Do feel free to edit any of the existing pages - there are many that need work. If you're looking for stuff to do here, you can contact me by leaving a message on my talk page. Have fun! -- -- Headrock (Talk) 06:59, December 13, 2012 response Hi, just thought I'd let you know that I responded to your question on my page and because of the length I won't paste it here. MysticX2 (talk) 17:32, December 16, 2012 (UTC) There was one thing I was looking at, the chart you put on the Engineers page is very similar to the one on the Construction page. The charts should match, but a couple of things are missing from the one on the Construction page. I haven't edited it because I was considering which of the charts worked best. I was leaning toward the one on the Construction page, but if you want to make that decision and make the edits I will leave that to you. MysticX2 (talk) 18:01, December 16, 2012 (UTC) I thought of something else that would really be useful, and that is those Category:Research Required pages. Those might require some testing or other information depending on the page. You might check those out if it is something you would be willing to do. MysticX2 (talk) 08:56, December 17, 2012 (UTC) If you want to try to "fix" the Experience Level page, at least the charts, feel free to do that. It would be good to have some detail spelled out as well, introductory information, explanations, examples. As far as I'm concerned the page is atrocious and needs a lot of help, so that would be a good place to start. I fixed a few of the links, but the charts are pretty much all wrong and not very useful. For those, check the pages for any normal unit like Barbarian Spearmen and any of the Hero pages to get a format, etc. Is that what you are looking for? MysticX2 (talk) 13:44, December 17, 2012 (UTC) : Hey, thanks for the response. I took a look at the Construction page, which I hadn't seen, and I synthesized the charts and combined my write-ups with the existing content. The links to the construction ability page from the Engineers page weren't very clear at all. So I put some clear links in. I added more research, too. I hope it looks okay. - Spearman D92-R (talk) 22:20, December 18, 2012 (UTC) :: I think you did a fine job. I won't promise that there won't be changes, but I think it works. The added links to the construction page will probably help and was probably a good idea, although I hadn't intended for you to remove your chart it probably isn't necessary to have it there with the new clearer links. Again, good job. :: Do any of the other suggestions look like something you want to work on? I'm really not sure what to do with the Experience Level page myself (I was waiting to see what Headrock did), but I dislike having the "bad" information that is there. I'm available for suggestions/chat/whatever. MysticX2 (talk) 10:12, December 19, 2012 (UTC) VERY IMPRESSIVE!! If you can't tell, I really, REALLY, like what you did to the Experience Level page! MysticX2 (talk) 07:25, December 22, 2012 (UTC) : Thanks very much!! Spearman D92-R (talk) 13:43, December 22, 2012 (UTC) ::I made one minor change as a matter of preference, but there is one thing that should probably be changed. In the subsection Effect on Unit Abilities, the first icon should probably be linked to Ranged Attack. If you want to link it to the subsection on the Ranged Attack page for Ammunition or even the section Limitations on Number... or simply keep the Ammunition switch, I think either of those would work and I leave it up to you to make the change. :D MysticX2 (talk) 12:21, December 23, 2012 (UTC) :::By all means make any changes you deem fit on any account. Any wiki needs consistency among what other editors are doing :) About the ammo, I've seen redlinks to Ammunition before but you're probably right that these should just go to the relevant subsection of the Ranged Attack page. Unless you want to whip up a new page for ammunition! It is listed as a special ability when the unit is queried in combat... Spearman D92-R (talk) 14:40, December 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::I think what you did is perfect. MysticX2 (talk) 17:47, December 23, 2012 (UTC) ::My apologies for monopolizing your talk page. If the above was unclear I will try to elaborate if that would help. I visit this site quite often most days, so if you need something it shouldn't take too long for a response. Another subject, are you working on the Wizard pages? MysticX2 (talk) 12:45, December 23, 2012 (UTC) ::: No problem, no problem. And I think doing the wizard pages would be fun... if you want we could work out a format by consensus. I know the pages would benefit from whatever canonical information we can find, and speculations on the racial origins of the wizard. Plus a larger, and mainly copy-pasted, section on the spellbook/trait payload, and how these change with difficulty setting, and how they influence the wizard's personality when it appears as an AI? - Spearman D92-R (talk) 14:40, December 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::Yeah, I'm hesitant to offer any suggestions because I think you will probably do a fine job...although if you want my help with something I'll be happy to do that. I agree that the "larger section...etc"...will mainly be applicable to all Wizards. You may want to write a couple of the easier wizards and make a link to uhhh Custom Wizard (up to you) for a new page. A short introduction on the main (default) wizard's page regarding how choosing XXXXX's image ensures that you won't have them as an opponent, that you can customize them..., and then a link to the page you set up (Custom Wizard in my example). Ok, I'm going to hush and hope that none of that misdirected you. You might be able to tell that I'm more of a chart/detail kind-of-guy, I'm terrible with descriptions :p . MysticX2 (talk) 17:47, December 23, 2012 (UTC) contributions I don't know if you like the badges, but I just thought I'd let you know that if you contribute today you get a badge for contributing 5 days in a row. I also wanted to ask if it is just me or does that first sentence on the Spell Skill page not make any sense? I'm thinking I'll leave it alone because Headrock probably already has plans...if he ever returns! MysticX2 (talk) 13:42, December 31, 2012 (UTC) :It makes sense to me, but the article as a whole could be written better I guess. Personally I don't mind at all if people come in and contribute whatever content they want (my views don't really matter here :D), but you showed me in your critique of my Engineers edit how it's important study the wiki's existing content, both for cross-referencing, templates, and the style of presentation. I sort of miss Headrock without having ever met him... :Anyway, I have a couple new Wizard writeups that I'll go ahead and submit. I want to get a final go-ahead from you though, as I've been treating all these like drafts, and there are more pages to do. Is there anything else you think would be appropriate to include on the individual wizards' pages? Personally I like having short descriptions for the wizards; hopefully it gives them and the page itself greater appeal, but there could be drawbacks. Do they seem fluffy? - Spearman D92-R (talk) 17:00, December 31, 2012 (UTC) ::Thanks, I was sure it must be right but I'm having one of THOSE days. ::The Draft pages don't seem fluffy to me, I think they have the necessary information and enough background to be interesting. Still, as with my previous comment, I won't promise that there won't be changes. The only thing I'm not sure on at the moment is the link to Normal Unit pages, such as Priests or Magicians (I think links to races are probably fine). It would probably help if I adhered to better English practices when writing...or speaking. Anyway, I think they are fine. MysticX2 (talk) 18:25, December 31, 2012 (UTC) ::By the way, it is just the linking to the Normal Unit pages that I'm questioning...not referring to them as a priest or a magician, etc. Also, I have THOSE days more often than I would like. :D MysticX2 (talk) 18:38, December 31, 2012 (UTC) :::Right then. References I made to these professions came from what scant canonical details were written in the game manual itself— Raven being labeled a shaman, Sharee a priestess, and such. I notice, now, that the Heroes with specifically "in-game" career backgrounds (the Paladin, the Ranger, the Warlock, etc.) do not have the corresponding Normal Unit linked in their general description, so that would be more consistent. So yeah, I agree on both counts. Spearman D92-R (talk) 19:09, December 31, 2012 (UTC) I started adding links and templates to the Spell Skill page, but then I thought it might be better if you wanted to take a look at the page, make those additions, and add anything you consider important for that page. If you don't have anything or prefer to continue what you are doing then I'll make those changes later (I saved the edits I had made when I had this thought). What do you think? MysticX2 (talk) 15:20, January 1, 2013 (UTC) Food I know you aren't finished with the page, but one thing that seemed a little "unusual" was Normal Unit Upkeep Costs linked to Upkeep Costs. Since there is a brief description on the Upkeep Costs page, there might be an example of a different way to put that. There probably isn't anything wrong with the way you've used it, but it seemed unusual to me and it may just be an unusual day for me and as usual I don't really have a suggestion for something better. :p MysticX2 (talk) 15:43, January 20, 2013 (UTC) Ah, I see why that is titled the way it is...in edit mode it is clearer. :D MysticX2 (talk) 17:11, January 22, 2013 (UTC) treasure points I'm curious about those treasure points. Is that something you can view? Is there an address in the code with that information? Is there a formula? MysticX2 (talk) 02:55, January 4, 2013 (UTC) :I doubt it can be accessed easily. The writers of the Prima guide were definitely in touch with the lead programmers to obtain this information! Spearman D92-R (talk) 16:56, January 4, 2013 (UTC) ::You're probably right. Too bad, are there any tables or is it just a brief description in the guide? I think I've been underpaid on treasure points. :p MysticX2 (talk) 19:30, January 4, 2013 (UTC) Wizard Pages I've been thinking about possible new pages, besides Custom Wizards, that might be necessary because of information that would be presented on the Wizard pages. I know of two (there might be more) that should be linked and then created. The first one would be a New Game page and the other would be a Custom Options link and page. Both pages would include some of the same/similar information, but the New Game page would focus more on choosing a default wizard and the options that are available by going with one of them. Both pages should include the difficulty, opponents, land size, and magic options. The New Game page might summarize the default wizards with an image and links to each wizard's page. The Custom Options page would elaborate and focus on the choices beginning with choosing the Custom option. The difficulty, opponents, land size, and magic options could be summarized in a single paragraph with links to the New Game page where they would be discussed more. The rest of the page would obviously be more about choosing retorts and the number of spellbooks (this is where the Custom Wizard page would be needed). Then the Race and Flag choices would have to be mentioned. Hopefully this makes sense. Anyway, do you have any thoughts, suggestions, or already taken care of the situation? MysticX2 (talk) 10:58, December 26, 2012 (UTC) :I suggest approaching the game creation process, and customized wizards, as an entirely different animal from the wizard pages. We could redlink New game and Custom Options for sure but I don't feel like I'm thorough, or important enough here, to write that content :) Probably the most pertinent information you could put on the wizard pages are a background blurb about the wizard itself and its most likely personality traits and objectives when encountered in the game as an AI. I don't see each wizard page being particularly long and detailed. That is, unless we just flat-out copy down the Strategy Guide's summary of the AI opponent creation process and put it on every damn page... which is just TMI on the wizard pages if you ask me. ::I know what you mean, I've only been here since August and I'm still hesitant to make any major changes. I don't have access to the strategy guide, so I don't know about that. I know Headrock uses the strategy guide, but I doubt he would copy much of the information if any. Yeah, long pages aren't really as useful as informative pages and we don't want to flood a page with information that could/should be on other pages instead. Oh yeah, you reminded me that the wizards are given a couple of personality traits, although I don't think those have much effect on the game in the long run. Anyway, no rush or anything...I was just trying to mention things I thought about in reference to the pages. MysticX2 (talk) 11:27, December 27, 2012 (UTC) :Anyway I am thinking about what to write and jotting stuff down, and I'll be submitting an edit soon here, I imagine... - Spearman D92-R (talk) 00:23, December 27, 2012 (UTC) ::You are right about the wizard pages. They should contain a "blurb" of two or three paragraphs, a paragraph or two about their default character, and then possibly a paragraph about choosing their image as a custom wizard. There really isn't much you can do with them. ::As for the Custom Wizards, they all start out as a blank slate and your choices determine what their character will be...the only thing that is different is your choice of the image and eliminating that wizard as a possible opponent. I've seen Sssra with death books, and Rjak with a mix, so that page might be more of a discussion on "picks"...which means a mention or reference to the retorts and spellbooks. Your opponents can be very different from their default character, but their default character does have some effect on their custom character. Sorry if my ramblings are confusing...on a good day I can write better. I will probably just need to wait and see what you have, and hope that I don't cause you too much frustration before then. MysticX2 (talk) 10:57, December 27, 2012 (UTC) Draft Page I think that looks very good. I wasn't aware of any of those numbers! It is a HUGE improvement on anything I could have done...and on what was, or wasn't, there before. Again, Good Job! MysticX2 (talk) 15:23, December 27, 2012 (UTC) :Yay :D I submitted a revision of the page for Merlin simply because he's the first wizard on the list. I put up information you suggested. Tried not to be long-winded about it. Strategy guide gives an edge because it talks about a few hidden mechanics. I compiled those personality stats after taking some pains to verify what the strategy guide says about how AI wizards are created. The rules are complex and I wouldn't have been able to deduce them in a million tries, but in several dozen new games I made yesterday at various difficulties, the strategy guide was never outright contradicted... so I took that to mean that it's very accurate on this. :Now, I'm starting to think that if there's a page to link everything together in this subject, it could be the yet-to-exist Wizard page. It would be a logical choice for the AI creation mechanics and the AI wizard traits. But it's linked literally everywhere, so it could/should/would to contain a smattering of info on every mechanic hinged on the wizards themselves in the game. No small project, that one. Maybe consider what the relation is between Wizard and Custom Wizard on the wiki. In any case I'll just do my thing and stay more focused on the individual wizards for now. Thanks so much for the guidance and, uh, validation! Spearman D92-R (talk) 15:57, December 27, 2012 (UTC) ::Yeah, the same thought about the Wizard page hit me yesterday as I was leaving. We may not need the Custom Wizard page or the New Game page. When you are close to having a draft ready let me know what you think. As you said the Wizard page is already linked everywhere and is a logical place for most (if not all) of the information. MysticX2 (talk) 10:05, December 28, 2012 (UTC) I made a change on the Sss'ra page to include the retort pick in the introduction. I think it needs to be included there to continue the design of the other wizard introductions. Does that work for you? MysticX2 (talk) 10:28, December 28, 2012 (UTC) :::The change you made to "...these Wizards' rolls" -> "roles" highlighted some unclear writing on my part, as I literally meant the die rolls that the computer casts to establish their AI traits. But that's sort of an unexpected thing to convey there, obviously. However you want to handle it, keeping the new meaning or rewording the original, is fine with me. Spearman D92-R (talk) 12:14, December 28, 2012 (UTC) ::::Ah, that makes sense and I almost mentioned it on here instead of making the changes. I was again in a bit of a hurry when I got online and I needed coffee. :D Maybe if you said "rolls for these Wizards ...", I think putting rolls before the word wizard will be clearer and fit the idea better. I'll leave it up to you. On the Sss'ra page, I still didn't think my re-wording really helped that much, but I do think their retorts (if any) should be mentioned with or near their spellbook picks. MysticX2 (talk) 18:03, December 28, 2012 (UTC) Next It looks like you have pretty much finished the wizard pages, so do you know what you want to look at next? MysticX2 (talk) 15:09, January 6, 2013 (UTC) Sorry about the double category. I'm looking forward to checking out the Wizard page. MysticX2 (talk) 17:52, January 7, 2013 (UTC) :Wizard sounds like a pretty major page... I hope we'd be doing the right thing making a draft for it, and I could probably use some help on what content to put in it. If you trust my writing then I will, of course, write stuff— but I'd like to know any ideas you have for the outline. I expect it'll basically be two parts: the capabilities of the player wizard in wide, comprehensive terms, and then the AI wizards. What specifically do you want to see? Spearman D92-R (talk) 19:12, January 7, 2013 (UTC) ::Yeah, you're right. I just got excited about having the individual wizard pages and got a little anxious. I'll give it some thought and I'll let you know if I have any decent ideas. I want Headrock to return! :D In the meantime I'm trying to resist some of the things I'm tempted to do. Were you going to look at that Spell Skill page to see if there was anything you thought should be added? MysticX2 (talk) 20:00, January 7, 2013 (UTC) I checked out the Farmer page and it is a Huge improvement on what we had. The one thing I thought about was in the Death Realm mentioning the Undead. I only say this because I didn't really realize/remember that the Undead Normal Units don't cost you ANYTHING to guard a town. In the 11 book game I played where I used the ONE Wraith to capture every town (about 20), I had enough Undead units that I was able to focus on production and pump out the buildings faster. Just a thought, and I'm not certain that it fits there...I thought about it when I was reading that section. MysticX2 (talk) 15:17, January 11, 2013 (UTC) While I said that it was a Huge improvement I didn't say, Good Job! MysticX2 (talk) 15:18, January 11, 2013 (UTC) :Thanks much! Now that you make their case, I fully agree that the undead units bear mentioning there. :After writing the section on spell effects, though, I wasn't sure whether the whole section should even be included on the page. I suppose it rounds out the article, but it seems to make it a bit longer and less to-the-point on Farmers themselves than a page about Farmers should be. I don't know what to think. :The page isn't explicit at all about how food is tallied up, but this is partly because it's rather mysterious, and partly because it would go better on the Food page. Spearman D92-R (talk) 16:05, January 11, 2013 (UTC) Roads Draft You were quite active here lately, Spearman D92-R, so I thought if you could write some kind of draft for Roads page. By my estimates, that page should cover basic information about roads, legit road using strategy, road exploit (written down fully on Forum: Exploits, along with some exploit-unrelated info that should be included into Roads page too) and exploit road using strategy. You've got a good prose, so I thought you could create a good one. So, if you agree, it would be nice. Twilight Sparkle the Alicorn Princess (talk) 09:53, May 4, 2013 (UTC) :It's a really good writeup! Perhaps I could start with a suggestion for organization. We have the Construction page where existing material on road building mechanics are consolidated from the other pages. The Roads page could describe the benefits and usage of roads but I think road building strategy should all be on one page. Between Road, Construction, and Engineers I'm not sure where I personally would look first. Probably Engineers, but such information would cause the page to be hugenormous, since it is already the archetypal unit page with overviews of racial engineers. :In the mean time, because MysticX is working on race pages, I'm working on race pages, lol. There are also a few other pages we had in mind before I disappeared (Casting Cost, Wizard, Food isn't done, Worker, Production)..... so I'll add Road to this.... best I can manage so far, but I appreciate that you are asking me to write up something. Spearman D92-R (talk) 12:47, May 4, 2013 (UTC) ::Well, I'm sure both texts on building roads and strategies of them being used should be in Roads page, as well as, of course, information about roads themselves. Enginner page is about unit that is not much related to roads, and Construction is an Unit Ability, not the process of creating roads. The resulting Roads article will be just enough, except for road exploit, which will take quite a bit of text. Twilight Sparkle the Alicorn Princess (talk) 14:19, May 4, 2013 (UTC) :::It is well by me to move all that material over and link it from construction and engineers when we write Roads. There is a lot of text so I think it is important mainly to consolidate it. Right now we are tied up with races, which are more visible pages, but your research is a lot of real strategy. Spearman D92-R (talk) 00:41, May 5, 2013 (UTC) ::::Yeah, moving some text regarding building process should be okay. Perhaps we should discuss this one in some kind of chat. I'm sure race pages will be done soon, as MysticX2 already has drafts for most of them, if not for all. Twilight Sparkle the Alicorn Princess (talk) 05:19, May 5, 2013 (UTC) Normal Units If you have some thoughts about the normal units page I hope you will develop those. I didn't intend to indicate that I've done anything to develop the normal units page. It was just funny that I had THOUGHT how easy it would be to create a comparative list...although based on experience it is never as easy as I think it will be. I'll be glad to share that information if you want to chat about a normal units page. MysticX2 (talk) 09:59, June 7, 2013 (UTC) :Having a full list of the normal units probably wouldn't be very helpful to anyone, for any purpose I can imagine, unless the list's columns were sortable. Having 2 smaller charts, one for archetypes and the other for racial units, with no statistics at all, just giving a 2-3 word description and then listing racial availability, would probably give a better overview. Having the two short charts and a sortable full list would be best. Experience Level should be summarized and linked, and maybe the level chart thrown in, but not lengthily discussed. There should be a strategy piece, to give an idea of what situations merit pursuit of strong normal unit armies, and when not to pursue them. :I've been working on races for something like 2 months and I wonder if the pages are even half-way done. Still, I mentioned Normal Unit specifically so it'd be wrong, but very typical of me, to turn instantly around and say NOT INTERESTED SRY Spearman D92-R (talk) 15:33, June 7, 2013 (UTC)